[IAEP] Non-technical Activity Library editors policy
Sascha Silbe
sascha-ml-ui-sugar-iaep at silbe.org
Mon Nov 30 05:11:17 EST 2009
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 12:19:31AM +0000, Aleksey Lim wrote:
> There were some threads in mailing lists last time about what
> activities
> could be approved to be public on Activity Library[1]. Well, some
> of these questions are very arguable, but the worst thing which could
> be
> is what we have now - lack on any definitions.
Unfortunately your draft is lacking any definition as well:
[1]:
>> * inappropriate(violent, sexual, subversive content) content
>> * non-FOSS licence, any restriction for essential(for education,
>> some people think, essential for other cases too:) behaviour, free to
>> run|study|redistribute|change
For the latter it's reasonably easy to come up with a definition (e.g.
all OSI-approved [3] licenses like Sourceforge does or only DFSG-free
[4,5] licenses like Debian).
The former ("inappropriate content") is unfortunately highly subjective
and IMO we should stay well clear of letting these considerations
influence decisions on whether an activity is displayed or not.
I could imagine adding voluntary "content advisory" information like
IMDB is doing. [6]
If we ever decide to filter the default view (i.e. the one not-logged-in
users get to see), we should _very_ clearly indicate it's only a subset
and that the filtered-out ones are not necessarily inappropriate to the
current user. It should also include easily understable and reproducible
instructions for removing these restrictions (i.e. creating an account
and configuring filter rules).
Of course content that is illegal (to all audiences) should be kept out
of a.sl.o. I'd suggest to take US and EU laws as a basis.
If obliged to do filtering by law (e.g. US), we should base it on IP
address <-> country mappings.
Just to make my position clear: To me, it's not about whether to provide
hardcore porn or highly violent content to children [7] (*), but about
all the other subjective decisions: Is Whack-a-mole [8] / Whack-a-rat
appropriate? I know many people who would argue on either side.
Similarly for various degrees of nakedness. And these are just two
examples, there's an entire universe spanning all the different
judgements.
> [1]
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Library/Editors/Policy/Non-Technical
> [2]
> http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Activity_Library/Editors/Policy#Additional_technical_policy_for_editors
[3] http://www.opensource.org/licenses
[4] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
[5] http://www.debian.org/intro/free
[6] Warning: Potentially inappropriate:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298203/parentalguide
[7] Warning: Potentially inappropriate:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0265086/parentalguide
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whack-a-mole
(*) We've watched some similarly violent and frightening war films at
school, while discussing WW II. But that's a controlled environment.
CU Sascha
--
http://sascha.silbe.org/
http://www.infra-silbe.de/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20091130/a4fcb6c2/attachment.pgp
More information about the IAEP
mailing list